A Critique of Aristotle's Poetics: Part I
Aristotle's major contribution to literature is his Poetics. It is the first piece of systematic literary theoretical analysis, and it remained tyrannically as the source of structural literary analysis. His definition of "tragedy" is in particular thought provoking. I would like to take this opportunity to seriously think about Aristotle's definition by first giving it a brief summary, then offering my critique.
In the Poetics, Aristotle defines "tragedy" as "a representation of a serious, complete action which has magnitude, in embellished speech, with each of its elements [used] separately in the [various] parts [of hte play]; [represented] by people acting and not by narrations; accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions." There are several points that deserves careful examination:
1. "magnitude": what does that mean? Is tragedy then only applicable to "great individuals"? Or must it be an action with larger-than-life outcome?
2. "embellished speech": this obviously mean poetry in its technical sense. But why is it necessary to have embellished speech? Is it just because of the magnitude of the drama? Or is there something more to that?
3. "catharsis": why must emotions be purged by tragedy? Is it not true that more often times emotions stay with us after we watch a play? When a stream of blood flows out of Agamemnon's house in The Oresteia, is our fear purged? Or does it haunt us in our own memory everytime we revisit that scene again?
Aristotle goes on to list the elements of tragedy, and there are six of them, in order of importance: plot, character, diction, reasoning, spectacle and song. Then he spends a good deal of time talking about the importance of plot, and parts of plot that make the best tragedies. These are reversal, recognition and suffering.
1. "reversal": this seem to refers specifically to the reversal of fortune in a character, usually but not always from good to bad. One thing we might want to think about is why should reversal be included in a tragedy? What if our tragic hero is a villian? What if there is no reversal of fate? Would it make a tragedy such as Agamemnon (taken out of the trilogy, which, for Greek tragedy, is more or less legitimate) less powerful?
2. "recognition": Aristotle is intelligently vague with this term. Is this suppose to mean a recognition of the tragic hero's previous error, or of the tragic hero's helplessness as a human being? The two cases are completely different: one is an epistemological recognition, and the other is a moral one. By citing Oedipus Rex, it seems that Aristotle means the former. But the problem with that is the former is not emotionally powerful unless the latter is also realized. In fact, the essence of "recognition" seems to be only the latter. The tragic error needs to be recognized within the scope of human morality: Oedipus' mistake does not mean anything if it has nothing to do with the gods' prophecy.
3. "suffering": this might be the only part of Aristotle's theory of tragedy that actually works. Human suffering, specifically, is what makes up the human condition. As Philoctetes shows us, human existence requires suffering, and it is not avoidable. If tragedy is designed to illuminate to the audience its condition, then suffering is a necessary component of the drama. In fact, a tragedy without suffering makes no sense; even Vladimir and Estragon, while waiting for Godot, suffer, and this is a play in which there is no action. The characters simply exist, and by virtue of their existence, they suffer.
In the Poetics, Aristotle defines "tragedy" as "a representation of a serious, complete action which has magnitude, in embellished speech, with each of its elements [used] separately in the [various] parts [of hte play]; [represented] by people acting and not by narrations; accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions." There are several points that deserves careful examination:
1. "magnitude": what does that mean? Is tragedy then only applicable to "great individuals"? Or must it be an action with larger-than-life outcome?
2. "embellished speech": this obviously mean poetry in its technical sense. But why is it necessary to have embellished speech? Is it just because of the magnitude of the drama? Or is there something more to that?
3. "catharsis": why must emotions be purged by tragedy? Is it not true that more often times emotions stay with us after we watch a play? When a stream of blood flows out of Agamemnon's house in The Oresteia, is our fear purged? Or does it haunt us in our own memory everytime we revisit that scene again?
Aristotle goes on to list the elements of tragedy, and there are six of them, in order of importance: plot, character, diction, reasoning, spectacle and song. Then he spends a good deal of time talking about the importance of plot, and parts of plot that make the best tragedies. These are reversal, recognition and suffering.
1. "reversal": this seem to refers specifically to the reversal of fortune in a character, usually but not always from good to bad. One thing we might want to think about is why should reversal be included in a tragedy? What if our tragic hero is a villian? What if there is no reversal of fate? Would it make a tragedy such as Agamemnon (taken out of the trilogy, which, for Greek tragedy, is more or less legitimate) less powerful?
2. "recognition": Aristotle is intelligently vague with this term. Is this suppose to mean a recognition of the tragic hero's previous error, or of the tragic hero's helplessness as a human being? The two cases are completely different: one is an epistemological recognition, and the other is a moral one. By citing Oedipus Rex, it seems that Aristotle means the former. But the problem with that is the former is not emotionally powerful unless the latter is also realized. In fact, the essence of "recognition" seems to be only the latter. The tragic error needs to be recognized within the scope of human morality: Oedipus' mistake does not mean anything if it has nothing to do with the gods' prophecy.
3. "suffering": this might be the only part of Aristotle's theory of tragedy that actually works. Human suffering, specifically, is what makes up the human condition. As Philoctetes shows us, human existence requires suffering, and it is not avoidable. If tragedy is designed to illuminate to the audience its condition, then suffering is a necessary component of the drama. In fact, a tragedy without suffering makes no sense; even Vladimir and Estragon, while waiting for Godot, suffer, and this is a play in which there is no action. The characters simply exist, and by virtue of their existence, they suffer.
posted by Tristan at 11:37 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home